Network News

In an award-winning journalism career spanning nearly three decades, Glenn Kessler has covered foreign policy, economic policy, the White House, Congress, politics, airline safety and Wall Street. He was The Washington Post's chief State Department reporter for nine years, traveling around the world with three different Secretaries of State. Before that, he covered tax and budget policy for The Washington Post and also served as the newspaper's national business editor. More »

Did he really say that?

By
Michael Dobbs

A Palestinian shepherd and Israeli settlements

"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a 'constant sore' as Barack Obama claims. Obama's latest remark, and his commitment to 'opening a dialogue' with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an 'apartheid state.' It's another sign that Obama is part of the broken Washington Americans are rejecting."
--House Republican leader John Boehner, press release, May 12, 2008

Did Barack Obama call Israel a "constant sore," as Republican leaders are claiming? Both House Republican leader John Boehner and Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor have taken the Democratic frontrunner to task for allegedly saying that Israel was a "constant wound" in U.S. foreign policy. The right-wing blogosphere is lending its voice to the chorus. But a fair-minded reading of Obama's remarks shows that his comment has been taken completely out of context.

The Facts

Obama gave an interview over the weekend to Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic in which, among other things, he rejected Jimmy Carter's characterization of Israel as an "apartheid state." Here is the passage that has now become controversial. (I have put some key phrases in bold.)

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter's suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?
BO: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there's no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn't advance that goal. It's emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it's not what I believe.
JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?
BO: What I will say is what I've said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

It is pretty clear from this passage that Obama is not calling Israel a "constant wound." Indeed, he specifically says "no, no, no" when asked if Israel is a drag on America's international reputation. He is referring to the overall Israeli-Palestinian problem, including continued Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

The Republicans rightly slammed Obama for twisting John McCain's statements about a possible U.S. military presence in Iraq for 100 years into a willingness to wage "a 100-year war." But they seem to have little compunction about resorting to the same kind of textual manipulation, when the opportunity arises. Even the conservative Weekly Standard thinks they have gone too far on this one.

I called Boehner's press secretary, Jessica Towhey, to hear his side of the story. She told me that the press release had been written by Don Seymour, communications director of The Freedom Project, Boehner's Political Action Committee. I have asked Seymour for an explanation for the "constant wound" characterization. If he provides one, I will let you know.

UPDATE Tuesday 3 p.m.

I received the following elaboration from Seymour:

The Senator said what he said...The policies Senator Obama advocates would weaken Israel and America's national security, and in Mr. Boehner's view it demonstrates a lack of judgment and an inexperience that shows he isn't prepared to be President.

"Said what he said." What a wonderful tautology!

The Pinocchio Test

My fellow fact checker, Jake Tapper of ABC, believes that Boehner has committed a bigger linguistic crime than Obama with his 100-year war quote. His argument: "Boehner et al are falsely accusing Obama of besmirching a nation and a people." Let me know what you think. For now, I will award Boehner and Cantor two Pinocchios apiece, which is what I gave Obama for the "100-year war."

Oh, I see -- you also gave Karl Rove TWO Pinocchios for mistaking Johnson for Carter -- I guess the "constant wound / sore" only includes those Jewish settlements in ARGUABLY Palestinian territory, not all of Israel. That makes me feel so much better ...

The lack of resolution between Israel and the Palestinians is not in any direct way our problem. The United Nations created Israel, not the United States. In 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, the Arabs tried to annhilate Israel and lost. In so doing, Israel acquired additional territories, which time has shown, is the normal course for victors in war. On the other hand, the problems in this part of the world are a continuing "sore" to peace in the Middle East. Many U.S. Presidents have tried to bring both sides together, sometimes with notable success. However, Obama seems to offer nothing new on this point.

How does this only get two pinocchios? They are not just misrepresenting a policy they are blatantly attempting to reinforce the smear campaign John McCain has already begun with his Hamas comments. This is a Republican conspiracy to link Obama to this myth that he is a terrorist sympathizer and a Muslim. Once again they are using fear mongering and attempting to appeal to the worst in us. I am disgusted by these smears and by my fellow Americans tolerance of them!

That would be a misrepresentation -- of course, I'm not running for President -- and I doubt that any fair reading of Obama's comments include "I think the attacks on Israel are a constant wound, a constant sore" ; )

No misstatement there... Just another Fox "fair and balanced" team seizing the day.

Maybe Bush's one redeeming parting gift to the world will be brokering some type of peaceful resolution. That's a long shot to say the least, but it could be the one action to keep him off the bottom of the worst presidential approval list (instead of 4th worst).

No misstatement there... Just another Fox "fair and balanced" team seizing the day.

Maybe Bush's one redeeming parting gift to the world will be brokering some type of peaceful resolution. That's a long shot to say the least, but it could be the one action to keep him off the bottom of the worst presidential approval list (instead of 4th worst).

The accepted usage of quotation marks is to denote a direct quote from a speaker or writer. The phrase "just because" does not appear in ManUnitdFan's post, and including that phrase completely changes the meaning of his sentence.

It isn't surprising that, in lieu of a real defense of your position ("[It]'s not a "smear" to point out he said the words"), you choose to misrepresent another's words.

An ugly people always looking for ugly word to use against good person, Obama is good man don't have any thing against Jewish people. Jewish community you need watch Obama is Blackman please don't smear him, we black people always side with Jewish community through civil rights.

The context of your "question" to jen suggested that you do not think it was a smear, but that Boehner was merely pointing out Obama said the words. Do you or do you not think it was a smear for Boehner to imply that Obama called Israel a "constant sore"?

If you are going to play word parsing games, you should be prepared when "the chickens come home to roost." And, as usual, you have no defense for your own mis-quoting except to change the topic.

LOL! "[M]is-quoting"?! What, am I running for President now too? To answer your question, I do not know whether it was a smear for Boehner to imply that Obama called Israel a "constant sore" -- hence, I am asking questions -- one must have all the reasonably-available FACTS (here on "The Fact Checker") before coming to a judgment.

"Oh, I see -- you also gave Karl Rove TWO Pinocchios for mistaking Johnson for Carter -- I guess the "constant wound / sore" only includes those Jewish settlements in ARGUABLY Palestinian territory, not all of Israel. That makes me feel so much better ..."

In what way, shape, or form is that a question and not a comment? Don't make inflammatory statements and then back off of them and claim you're just "asking questions" once you get scrutinized. You do that constantly on here.

"Oh, I'm just pointing out the Barack HUSSEIN Obama's middle name means handsome; I'm not implying his name is anything bad. ;)"

Right. Your question ("That's not a 'smear' to point out he said the words, right?") was meant to ascertain a FACT and not jen's OPINION.

The Fact Checker has provided exact quotes in his post. Based on these FACTS, he has rendered his OPINION -- "a fair-minded reading of Obama's remarks shows that his comment has been taken completely out of context." You can agree with it or not; your judgment will show how "fair-minded" you are. (Semicolons are used to link two independent clauses without connecting words or with conjunctive adverbs.)

You know, since its inception, the US has been Israel's strongest ally, giving them over $3 BILLION in aid last year. What has that gotten us in the last 60 years? Hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians dead and no solution in sight. Maybe it's time to change course on our unwavering support.

There is no question that Obama refers to the Israeli Arab conflict as an open wound and a sore and I have no doubt that is exactly how he views it. Which of course ignore the fact that Arabs have been fighting each other since the days of the the 'prophet' and continue to do so and will continue long after any "solution" is made regarding Israel.
Bottom line for Obama is nobody wants the Palestinians - they don't even want themselves. Hamas vs. PLO; Hezbollah vs. Lebanon, Shia vs. Shunni - that is the festering sore and will not go away a solution to to "Jewish" question.

The topic of the conversation was Israel. And in relation to Israel and ALL the mid-east foreign relations, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a sore that effects ALL other relations we have in the mid-east. So, while it does not directly affect Dafur/China et el, our policy does frame a preconceived notion of our end-game in all relations.

I believe Mr. Boehner's statements require 3 Pinocchios. The difference between the 100 years/Sore issues is that Mr. Boehner's characterization is a complete misstatement of ONE (emphasis added) statement, whereas the 100 years issue is the projecting of numerous statements by McCain that the war should continue until we have won...the problem is and one that McCain cannot properly define, how do we win!?!

Here's the full text. Senator Obama is shown to be correct on all the issues and very thoughtful as well.

The Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did Barack Obama no favor recently when he said: "We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election." John McCain jumped on this statement, calling it a "legitimate point of discussion," and tied it to Obama's putative softness on Iran, whose ever-charming president last week called Israel a "stinking corpse" and predicted its "annihilation."

The Hamas episode won't help Obama's attempts to win over Jewish voters, particularly those in such places as -- to pull an example from the air -- Palm Beach County, Florida, whose Jewish residents tend to appreciate robust American support for Israel, and worry about whether presidential candidates feel the importance of Israel in their kishkes, or guts.

Obama and I spoke over the weekend about Hamas, about Jimmy Carter, and about the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. He seemed eager to talk about his ties to the Jewish community, and about the influence Jews have had on his life. Among other things, he told me that he learned the art of moral anguish from Jews. We spoke as well about my Atlantic cover story on Israel's future. He mentioned his interest in the opinions of the writer David Grossman, who is featured in the article. "I remember reading The Yellow Wind when it came out, and reading about Grossman now is powerful, painful stuff." And, speaking in a kind of code Jews readily understand, Obama also made sure to mention that he was fond of the writer Leon Uris, the author of Exodus.

Here are excerpts from our conversation:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I'm curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.

And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.

JG: You've talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking

Senator Obama: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn't know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it's something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.

One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don't need to elaborate.

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel's side?

Senator Obama: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you've gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it's a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don't always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don't know you -- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski -- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don't feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it.

Senator Obama: I find that really interesting. I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what's been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they're asking themselves moral questions.

Sometimes I'm attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it's more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don't think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they've interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn't flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they've seen me operate in difficult political situations.

The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I'm University of Chicago, I've got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I've been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it's curious.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

Senator Obama: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I've repeatedly condemned them. I've repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

Senator Obama: I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: "Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you're waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel's security is non-negotiable." I've said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that'd be a place where you'd hear it.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel's actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel's right to defend itself. I said that there's not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world's accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel's security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel's security.

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter's suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

Senator Obama: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there's no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn't advance that goal. It's emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it's not what I believe.

JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?

Senator Obama: What I will say is what I've said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?

Senator Obama: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now, and that won't lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don't know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That's the question that has to be asked.

republicans are obviously trying to scare conservative jewish voters into jumping to their war hawk party.
any one with a brain can see the comments were correct about the CONSTANT WARFARE which no one wants and the fact that it is an UNRESOLVED issue-constant rocket barrages from palestine. duh.
me i would have neutron bombed the criminal gangs of gaza long ago..but then thats just me.

Rep. Boehner should definitely get at least one more Pinocchio. He should also be forced to spend one hour reading Little Green Footballs and then asked whether that's the sort of people he wants to be associated with.

"Minimize"?! Here's where the sense of humor stops. All that Dobbs pointed out is that no one from the U.S. Government PURPOSEFULLY INFECTED those poor men -- a la Dr. Mengele -- everyone (including Dobbs) has rightly condemned the U.S. Government for what it failed to do regarding said infected men. Properly understanding the difference -- and pointing that out -- is "minimizing" the US Government's role in the Tuskegee Experiment? Probably "racist" too, huh?

I'll stand on what I posted. A definition of "minimize" is as follows: "represent as less significant or important." He called allowing human beings to suffer and die merely a "breach of medical ethics", and his rationale was that the government did not infect the original patients. That is representing their deaths and suffering as less significant or important, because (presumably) the government did not directly infect them.

Here's the thing -- he gave O'Donnell three Pinocchios for a statement that was arguably true (heavy on the arguably). One star, yeah, sure. Three? On a scale of zero to four, where four is Hillary's Bosnia sniper fire lie? I can't see it. But that forced him to justify the rating, which means he had to go into what happened and then, somehow, say it wasn't THAT bad.

He cited Tom Brokaw, but, as I pointed out, Brokaw's statement was _literally_ accurate. And he completely gives a pass to the government's consistently deceiving these people: not only did it not offer real treatment, it lied about what they were suffering from and deceived them -- by giving them aspirin -- into thinking they were receiving treatment for the malady the government conned them into thinking they were suffering.

Someone else pointed out that (a) the Post doesn't go around fact-checking how many Jews died in the Holocaust and (b) they would take Jewish sensitivity into account in reporting that, if they did. Dobbs has no sensitivity whatsover as to how wrong withholding treatment for suffering human beings; he calls it (relying on memory here) a "regrettable breach of medical ethics."

And there's no escaping that the study was, itself, racist, as it was a study in the progression of syphillis in the Negro male. As if it would be different in white males.

Put it this way -- if all you've got is, well, the government didn't stick a needle with syphilis into them, it just sat back and let them suffer and die when treatment was readily available -- you got nothing. That's as weak an excuse as, I was just following orders. And if you would not be so prone to split hairs over a similar incident where whites are the victim, yeah, you're racist.

So let's review:

1) The government, at a minimum, lied to people about their sickness

2) The government withheld treatment that could have alleviated their sickness

3) People suffered and died, including innocent women and children

4) Only blacks were selected, only blacks suffered in this fashion.

But -- BUT -- the Government did not stick a syphilis needle in people to infect them.

JakeD, what would YOU call this? A breach of medical ethics? Would you say that these people were victims of class, and not race? And where's the similar study, whose subjects were middle-class whites in, say, Kensington, MD?

I get you think people throw the word "racist" around freely. But what would you call this?

I think I already answered that (on the prior thread), especially after the standard of care changed, the government doctors' conduct was -- at worst -- criminal negligence. Sorry you think the distinction between that and Dr. Mengele INTENTIONALLY INFECTING Jews is such a close call -- I would dare say you are "minimizing" those Nazi experiments and not being too "sensitive" yourself, but that's not the type of ad hominem argument I care to make.

Fact Checker gives 2 Pinocchios and thinks this balances out with the "One Hundred Years of War" comment?

Huh? McCain said he might keep the US in Iraq for 100 years, then later says that "that is not what he meant".

Obama gets 2 Pinocchios for only talking about the first thing McCain said and not his correction.

Obama on the other hand, never said that "Israel is a sore". From context there is no ambiguity about what Obama's use of 'this' referred to. So Boehner lies outright and gets the same number of Pinocchios.

If anything Mccain should get 1 Pinocchio for saying he wanted the US in Iraq for 100 years then later using legalistic language to talk his way out of it and Boehner should get 3-4 Pinocchios for lying about what Obama said. If you only give 2 Pinocchios every time someone decides to switch the reference of a demonstrative pronoun, you're essentially justifying outright lies whenever.

I know you want your column to be popular, but giving a lesser rating to something truly false because some conservatives were upset that you didn't give a higher rating to Obama's comments is completely unreasonable.

What do I think? Boehner out and out LIED about what Obama said, and Jeff Goldberg confirmed that. This isn't "politics," it's a corruption of our democratic system, and you need to show the spine to call it such.

I rarely agree with any thing JakeD posts, but I think he's right about the Tuskegee Experiments. It does not minimize the horror and wrongness of what DID happen when you make factual statments about what DID NOT happen. Nobody was intentionally infected. Any one who says that people were is misrepresenting the facts, and should be called out on it.

Ever notice how the Republicans always bring up some silly thing to just direct attention away from their miserable record?
Next will be a new version of the swift
boat lies. Stay tuned the Repulsivecans will bring in their boat load of dirty
tricks.

I think this deserves more pinocchios than the 100 years war statement. McCain's assertion is that we can stay in the Middle East indefinately once we reach a peaceful state of bliss where every Iraqi loves us and invites US soldiers over for tea. What he leaves open is how do we need to fight it out to get to this state of nirvanah? Do we have to stay in Iraq fighting bloody for ten years to "Korea levels"? 20 years? 100 years? Is that worth it to him? That is what reporters should be asking about instead of the mindless bickering over 100 years.
This Sore quote is just lying. Like those movie reviews where they take the two positive sounding words out a 100 word review that trounces the movie.
" I was deeply gratified to finally escape the most monstous movie ever made."
On the movie poster-
"most...deeply gratif(ying) movie ever made"
Jake D- You need to reread your history. Tuskeegee may not of involved infecting the original 400 test subjects with syphilis, but 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. The subjects transmitted syphilis because of instead of knowing they had a sexually transmitted disease the men were told they had "bad blood". After 1947 when it was discovered that penicilin cured syphilis- those men were murdered by their doctor.
Doctor Heller famously stated "The men's status did not warrant ethical debate. They were subjects, not patients; clinical material, not sick people." I think Mengele would agree with that statement.

It is absolutely true that McCain's statement about 100 years in Iraq was not referring to a war but a peaceful presence. He was at pains to specify that during the Q and A.

However, McCain has never said how long he is willing to keep American troops in Iraq if the violence does continue. He has harshly criticized Obama and Clinton for wanting to withdraw after 5 years of violence. What is McCain's limit? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? (Perhaps you or someone at the Post could ask him.) All we know is that his limit is longer than 5 years. But, everything he has said indicates that he is willing to stay as long as it takes. He has put no upper limit on it, and if it takes 100 years, he seems willing to do that.

Obama's characterization, then, was really only unfair in the sense that McCain doesn't WANT to stay at war for 100 years. But, he does seem willing. That is, his characterization was an exaggeration, but not the opposite of McCain's view.

Boehner's comment, however, is the exact opposite of Obama's view. The equivalent lie on Obama's part would be to say that McCain wants to pull out all troop immediately (though even that would not be as egregious as Boehner's lie, since a substantial portion of Americans do want our troops home immediately, while there is not a strong anti-Israeli bias among Americans). On this basis, it is clear that Boehner's comment deserves more Pinocchios than does Obama's

BTW, just how long would John McCain want to have troops in Iraq if they were being killed as they are now? He never said, did he? He did say there will be other wars. Does he plan on pulling them out and sending them somewhere else?

"Sorry you think the distinction between that and Dr. Mengele INTENTIONALLY INFECTING Jews is such a close call -- I would dare say you are "minimizing" those Nazi experiments and not being too "sensitive" yourself, but that's not the type of ad hominem argument I care to make."
_____________________________________________

My reference to Mengele did not involve his "INTENTIONALLY INFECTING Jews" (your words). Far as I know, he did not infect anyone with anything. He DID perform some pretty horrific experiments on people.

But here's the salient point: "Mengele tried to prove that Noma was caused by racial inferiority." (wikipedia) I contend that that is not any different than "doctors" attempting to prove that syphilis has a different course of progression in blacks than in whites. Soooo -- in this regard, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Mengele and the Tuskegee doctors.

Criminal negligence (i.e., failure to act) is not applicable here, because there was an overt act -- lying and administering (essentially) placebos. Manslaughter, I think, although obviously the defense would be acting under color of governmental authority. But again -- doctors who did what Mengele* did were charged as war criminals performing medical experiments, without the subjects' consent, on prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries. Several who were found guilty of this charge were executed.

As it happens, I cited Mengele because (a) it is apposite and (b) I consider the Nazis the "gold standard", if you will, of evil. Allowing people who are trusting you for care to suffer with syphilis, while lying to them about what they are suffering from and how you are treating them, is high 9s on the 0 to 10 scale of evil. It's hard to go beyond that. That takes a pretty depraved mind. And I think you should take a look at yourself, if you can look past all the evil that entailed _to parse a sentence_ as if this was some sort of academic exercise. I am sure the fact that you possess that ability does not bother you. I am proud to say it bothers ME, deeply, just like the tales of Jews being betrayed and murdered bother me. 'cause once you can compartmentalize that, you're not far away from minimizing it.

I think this particular argument is one best solved by understanding what is called "a pattern and practice." Any person can word some phrase awkwardly and leave the wrong impression. It helps when the person quickly explains, clarifies, backs down, apologizes, or whatever is required to restore a sensible dialoge and a degree of respect for others. One doesn't see enough of that nowadays. On the other hand, to pounce on some ill-chosen words and accuse "what you really meant was this awful thing -- see, I've got you now" -- this game of gotcha -- that is part of a pattern and practice of some of the Republican leaders in the House. Democratic leaders get annoyed and impatient and try to play their version of political hard-ball, too. And there is very little civility. There has always been a tendency toward this in the House, and it infected the Senate when Santorum and Allen were elected, and became virulent when Mitch McConnell took over. There is more pretence of civility in the Senate than in the House or in the blogs. I wonder whether any of the persons commenting on this fact-check would like to try it? Several seem to be potentially rational -- although apparently annoyed! Why should we expect our politicians who are so deeply involved in these policy -- and personal -- disputes to behave with proper courtesy, even some degree of sincere well-meaning, when we are tempted by our seeming anonymity to let fly with our hostilities. I admit I have typed some things into the comment square, reviewed them, and not posted them. It gave me great satisfaction to see them in print, I must say -- I just would rather not have someone else see them and think I am impolite. On the other hand, letting loose with the intensity of one's convictions on the substance of controversy --that we must not self-censor nor allow others to censor.

According to the rating scale, this is clearly at least a three Pinocchio situation. This wasn't just "playing with words", this was a "significant factual error" that could only be interpreted as being deliberate. These men are lying.

Thank you for admitting the Tuskeegee Experiment did NOT involve infecting the original 400 test subjects with syphilis. That's the only distinction I was making. In every other regard, it was just as evil as the Nazi "doctors". There, does that make you happy? I already said that, after 1947, these U.S. "doctors" were guilty of criminal negligence.

gbooksdc:

I certainly am not the one "minimizing" anything. As SonicJones pointed out, the facts are simply the facts. Here's another FACT: Dr. Josef Mengele infected Jews with typhoid, etc.:

Oh, JakeD, isn't there a golf course with your name on it? You would jump into this one even when it is completely wrong and several conservative papers think Boehner lived up to the pronounciation of his name. You would waste hours defending the Bosnia comments but here you are quick to attack Obama -so predictable.

Senator Obama is obviously partial to the "Third World" complex: Liberation Theology, soft-on-terrorism, anti-Israel, anti-American. Just as Pinochio's nose just grew longer when he lied, the supporters of Obama are running around with noses the size of large tree limbs. One has to be really really stupid to believe a slick, Harvard Law Review shyster from the Chicago machine. Obama's words are chosen carefully and not spontaneous. Obama can try and hide his true convictions behind a fog of lawyerly and crafted words. But people with high intelligence see right threw him. As does he, himself, know that he is a snare and a delusion.

for some telling the truth about israil is a sin. We are paying our taxes to help israil, what israil is doing to USA, what are we benefiting from israil except waisting our taxes money, USA consider israil our friends, do friends spy on friends, how USA can trust a country who is been spying on its political and weapons secrets?

What I believe Senator Obama was referring to is the Israel is in a constant struggle with the Palestines which threatens both nations and our security. He rightly acknowledges that Israel is one of our strongest allies and a very valuable entity to our government in the Middle East. I think the Republicans are looking at any ill-conceived statements on their part to criticize and maim Senator Obama. There's no taking back that Senator McCain said he thinks it's OK to fight in Iraq for 100 years and their searching for any excuse to diminish that impact.

Carter never claimed Israel resembles an apartheid state. What he said, with some justification, is that the situation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank (not Israel itself) resembles apartheid, with Jewish-only settlements, Jewish-only roads, Palestinians requiring passes to get from one town to the other, etc.
Carter has clarified this distinction many many times. The biggest Pinnochios goes to those who keep up the lie that Carter has said Israel -- which he has repeatedly praised for its democratic institutions -- is an apartheid state.

You cannot negotiate with someone who is trying to kill you. An attempt at negotiations will be perceived as a sign of weakness and only encourage the terrorist to strike sooner and harder. At worst, what you must do with terrorist is at least to reach a stalemate (what we did with Russia in the cold war) and let nature then take its course. The flaw in the terrorist modus operandi will ultimately lead to their destruction.

The GOP can't run on what they've accomplished; the American people have suffered under their administration and their congressional majority.
They can't run on what their opponents believe; the American people agree with those beliefs.
So, they run opn what the claim their opponents believe.

You cannot negotiate with someone who is trying to kill you. Any attempt at negotiations will be perceived as a sign of weakness and only encourage the terrorist to strike sooner and harder. At worst, what you must do with terrorist is at least to reach a stalemate (what we did with Russia in the cold war) and let nature then take its course (which it did with Russia). The flaw in the terrorist modus operandi will ultimately lead to their destruction.

Certainly a reasonable but definitely sympathetic interpretation of Obama's remarks are that he did not mean that Israel was a "constant wound." But also reasonable is that his remarks are derogatory towards Israel and its effect on US foreign policy. The bottom line is that, once again, Obama was ridiculously sloppy in phrasing his remarks and now, on again, the press is trying to give him a pass. Boehner was simply playing the cards that Obama himself dealt him. And the Republicans will continue to walk through every door that Obama opens for him. Obama and his friends need to stop whining.

Blog News is more trustworthy than WaPo!
"In Iowa, the first caucus state, a new American Research Group [ARG] polls show New York Senator Hillary Clinton with 31 percent, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards with 25 percent and Obama with just 11. That barely puts the Illinois senator ahead of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson at 8 percent. In New Hampshire, the first primary state, the new ARG poll has Clinton at 34 percent, Edwards at 18 percent, Obama at 15 percent and Richardson at 9 percent. In South Carolina, the second primary state, according to ARG, it's Clinton 34 percent, Edwards 30 percent, Obama 18 percent, and everyone else -- including Richardson -- under 2 percent.

Those numbers are very good news for Clinton, who has garnered better and better poll numbers in key states since the last Democratic debate. They are encouraging for Edwards, who despite personal and campaign stumbles is still very much in the game. And they offer at least a measure of hope for Richardson that he really is breaking out of the bottom tier.
For Obama, the numbers are certainly not the death knell. But they ought to make him think about whether he might want to get a copy of "the book" and at least consider going by it a little more in the early states. It would be a mistake for the senator -- who has come a long way by breaking rules and pushing envelopes -- to bend entirely to the conventional wisdom. But he has to recognize that losing all the early contests could sap his campaign of the momentum it will need when the race goes national in early February."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Boehner and Cantor's misrepresentation of
Obama's statements are so horrible, they rise to the level of a danger to our foreign policy.John Mccain should be ashame of him self for having his cohorts engage in this sort of fear mongoring.But I guess this is what the republicans do when they are afraid of losing power.Lost LA senate seat, lost in Miss., lost in ILL.
they will continue to do this and get away with it, because the media like ABC, CBS,MSNBC,AND CNN will allow it.If MR.OBAMA
had truly said what they are spinning, every new channel would be running it 16 hours a day.BUT we all know who own these channels. JOHN MCCAIN SHOULD BE ASHAME.

It is outrageous that Obama gets slammed for exploiting McCain's 100 year quote. I don't want troops there for 100 years, even if there is no war. McCain said it. He is adamant that the US should be all over the world with troops. But Obama has to use McCain's nuance and clarifications or he is lying.

Did someone get slammed for Obama's bitter remarks? If those were fleshed out, you see he was being very sympathetic and supportive of these people he called bitter? Was McCain required to voice this nuance by you "fact checkers"?

Finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a critical component to winning the war of ideas. No other issue has so colored the perception of the United States in the Muslim world. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of human suffering, because of America's close relationship with the state of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region's importance to other global priorities of the United States.

The Middle East problems of racial/ethnic/religious hatred will never end. One has only to view the next to last sequence of Lawrence of Arabia to see a sadly great example of Arab tribal animosities. Jews are hated more than Sunnis and Shia hate each other. It's tribal chaos. And it all started when god designated a chosen people and cousins each heard that they were chosen. Hatfield's and McCoy's, war without end, amen.

This tribal hatred might subside when dependence on oil makes the Middle East less important commercially, when Western freedoms are actually understood by the next generation of Islam, and the religions of the world are relegated to obscurity, but I wouldn't count on any of this happening in the next 2-3 generations. As long as the myth continues that the military/industrial complex is profitable, and relatively few people profit while costs for food, good health and clothing continue to rise unabated for everyone, we will wallow in our own swill.

Confucius said, "In a country (world) where people starve, being wealthy is a shame." I love the USA, but I believe our time in the sun may be coming to an end. It may be time to reinvent ourselves to move ahead successfully into the future. I believe that the last eight years have done more to damage our position in the world than any time before. We have blatantly shown that we are not holding to our principles, Constitution and laws, and that has signaled the decaying of our moral infrastructure. Other countries have done this, and they are no more.

And we are arguing over a few words said, ignoring their context, and hoping to sway public opinion with lies and innuendo. We have relegated ourselves to being perpetually trivial.

The utter stupidity of some your posters is astounding, sound bites from Reverend Damn America, now this perfectly normal statement made by Senator Obama, and twisted totally out of context to try and make it appear anti-Israel. Its a sign of desperation to try and discredit a very capable canditate.

It's a good thing that 99% of the voters will totally disregard this crap as pond scum, and go on to elect the best President your country will have since JFK.

I'd give them three noses, because what they said was in fact the opposite of what Obama said.
McCain, on the other hand, actually said he'd back a hundreds years war in Iraq, as long as nobody got hurt (???), which is a little like saying I like pornos as long as nobody has sex in them.
There is a quantitative difference between what Obama said and what the Republican henchmen are lying about. McCain said he wanted war without casualties (he's old, it's understandable if he gets confused, he probably meant "meat loaf" without casualties or maybe he was thinking of that Indiana state fair he attended while he was in Iraq) and Obama repeated part of it. Obama wasn't talking about Israel, but about the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Forgot to mention one thing-It behooves us to remember that the animosity between Muslem and Jew in the area that was Palestine isn't really "ancient" by any stretch of the imagination. Arial Sharon, was born fifteen years before the foundation of Israel in the Sharon Valley in what later became Israel, where his family has lived as long as anyone can remember at relative peace with it's Islamic neighbors.After the '48 war, however, a lot of Arab property was confiscated and as a result many arab families were expelled from the new state.
That is at the heart of the Israeli/Arab conflict, the competition over scarce resources and the lengths each tribe will go to secure them for their very own. The Arabs are certainly no better, but then again nor are they worse than the Israelis. Menachem Begin couldn't travel to England because of a warrant on his head for the bombing of the King David hotel (a terrorist act).
What we need to remember is seeing one side as victim and the other as oppressor is just another way to salve our own consciouses. Both sides leaders make a living out of killing.

The hyper-partisans on both sides of the aisle have always mischaracterized their opponents' statements and taken them out of context, and they always will. It is the ugliest aspect of the political extremes in this country and the least constructive. And both major political parties are equally culpable for engaging in it. It's a shame and a major distraction, and as one can tell from some of the posts here, the practice, particularly when so blatant, actually only serves to hurt the reputation of the statement-maker's candidate - even though McCain didn't make the remark and has gone further out of his way than most politicians to renounce some of the ugly statements by his supporters, there's somehow guilt-by-association, at least among ardent Obama supporters. Words do matter, as Obama has reminded us, and there will always be some gray area, but Obama's statement here is clearly not gray area - it is excruciatingly obvious that he was referring to the conflict, not Israel.

Perhaps you need to freshen up your level of comprehinsion.
There are Jewish groups that back him. Typical comment to stir up trouble where there is none.

Cannot win playing by the rules so react like a 4 year old.
While he said the Iraq war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences," he was also careful to emphasize that there were times when military intervention was necessary. 2002

Mr. Obama has condemned Hamas, a militant Palestinian group, as a terrorist organization.

Mr. Obama after returning from a stint as White House counsel for President Bill Clinton to teach law at the university.

What I haven't heard anyone say about McCain's 100 year-presence comment was that, to anyone with just the rudimentary understanding of Middle-East culture, it's obvious a 100-year presence would opposed violently for its duration, quite unlike the way we are, for the most part, welcomed in Korea and Japan. Senator McCain did not say we would continue a 100-year war if needed, he was just referring to a US military presence, but it is highly unlikely a US presence could be sustained without continued jihadist bloodshed. Equating it to post-WW II bases seems like trying to view the current world situation through outdated lenses. IMO.

Are you people even interested in anything other than BULL CRAP!! People are loosing their JOBS, HOMES, LIFE SAVINGS! While MILLIONS are being SPENT on this ELECTION, Millions are Arming themselves against the US.... I think there are bigger fish to fry!! I don't have time to pick at each F'in statement made. I WANT FACTS. HOW AND HOW WILL THEY TURN THIS CRAP AROUND???? No wonder nothing gets solved!! Also, Out of all these people running for Office, OBama is the only one who has not stooped to the level of immaturity and ignorant attacks like the others!!

I re-read my last post to you, and I apologize for coming off so harsh. If you see this post, all I am asking is that you please reconsider your prior (what I could argue is "insensitive") insistence of equating "Dr." Mengele with the Tuskegee Experiment -- read this book "Children of the Flames" by Joe E. White which chronicles Mengele's notorious medical experiments on approximately THREE THOUSAND twins who passed through the Auschwitz death camp. Only a few of these twins survived and, later, they have told their story of how they were given special privileges in Auschwitz owing to Mengele's interest in twins, and how as a result they have suffered during the past sixty years, as the children who survived the still unknown and unexplained medical experiments and injections at the hands of Josef Mengele.

Keep in mind, also, that Mengele was only the most prominent Nazi "doctor" around, but many others PURPOSEFULLY INFECTED victims with malaria, Streptococcus, gas gangrene, and tetanus -- not to mention all the grisly deaths by freezing, mustard gas, sea water, and unspeakable sorts of horrors -- whether you like it or not, the Nazi Experiments are not apposite to the Tuskegee Experiment.

Wow - nothing like a comment about Israel and US-Israel relations to create a lot of heat and a long, confusing blog.

In terms of the question posed, I submit the following:
The McCain claim deserves more Pinocchios than that of the Obama camp.

Why?
1. Even (generously) assuming that McCain's original statement was only that he is SO SO SO committed to seeing victory (whatever that is) in Iraq that he could see US troops in the country for 100 years, the reality is that US troop presence = attacks on our troops = ongoing war effort in Iraq. So, 100 years presence = 100 years war - that's the reality (hard to face as it may be, we are an occupying power and not beloved by many Iraqis, even those we installed as heads of the current gov't there).

2. speaking of 'occupying power': fact is, the US and UN position is that the boundary of Israel (nation) is still set at the pre-1967 borders. In the other parts, Israel is an occupying power under international law (hence the term: occupied territories).
Reading Mr. Obama's interview, the level of distortion by the mc Cainites is far worse.
To all the blog posters bothered about Mr. Obama's statements: if someone comes and is occupying power here in the US, whatcha gonna do? I would plan to resist the occupation. I hope that as a fervent patriot, y'all might join me in the resistance. So, after 40 years of our often violent struggle, do you think some of the rest of the world might view the problem as a wound and a sore on having a peaceful world?

This is typical of Obama's habit of saying he doesn't believe something, yet then turning around and saying he believes in what he just said he doesn't believe in.

He was asked if Israel is a drag on US foreign policy. He said no (three times, no less). But then he said that it's a "constant wound" and a "constant sore" that infect[s] all of our foreign policy." It's ridiculous for the author of this blog to spin this away.

This is the same thing as when Obama said he never heard controversial remarks while sitting in the pews at Trinity United, yet when giving a major speech on race relations he said that of course he heard his pastor say controversial things.

Why does the media just let these blatant manipulations slide? Isn't a fact checker blog supposed to expose lies and manipulation?

I am a democrat and do not doubt for a minute that he said it and MEANT it. All you have to do is READ HIS BOOKS! He has no love lost for Israel and possibly not the United States! Read his books. If he is the nominee, I will vote republican for the first time in my adult life because I have always loved my country!

"I am a democrat and do not doubt for a minute that he said it and MEANT it. All you have to do is READ HIS BOOKS! He has no love lost for Israel and possibly not the United States! Read his books."

It truly doesn't take much to awaken the obviously biased. The Senator did not say "Them", "They", "Those People", "Them Folk" or direct his statement to anything other than "It".... The subject being discussed.

Q: "Is the issue of Race a factor in this election"

A: "It is."

Response: "You just said Blacks are merely a factor. I heard you. You said IT. Blacks. That's what you meant."

Whether or not he meant it, one thing is certain: he needs to learn how to express himself and the language he uses. If every time he says something that's unscripted he makes a mistake, he may end up insulting a great deal of people, both home and abroad.

BTW, his wife also needs to learn how to dress like a First Lady... what's with all that skin showing and the excessive make-up?

Israel is NOT a constant wound. Nothing Israel does on its territory is a constant wound. Now the arab terrorists who blow up innocent Israeli's, THAT is a contstant wuond. Obama is NO good for America, and especially Israel.

This is very sad. When people we hold in high esteem can not understand simple contextualization, then, something is wrong with the whole system. I mean, how should a teacher deal with a student who makes this mistake if those we think should know better are intellectually dull. I don't think John Boehner's position on this issue perpetuates any mischief; it only proves that he is an illiterate.

"Whether or not he meant it, one thing is certain: he needs to learn how to express himself and the language he uses."

When asked if the conflict between the two parties is a conflict... If any person responds "Yes IT is.", you now assert that the respondent must "learn how to express himself".

This is the epitome of idiocy. I would be the first to admit when any candidate has erred.... but to assert that "IT" now means Israel demonstrates a considerable lacking in just plain Common Reasoning.

It is not the state of the American Education system that we may blame our circumstance, but the willingness of Americans to slander and malign for political benefit... this has become our religion... and nothing is sacred but victory

Is any body surprised by this. This is what the republicans do, this is the same tactic they've been using for decades. I call it the smear and fear tactic. They smear their opponent, then try to use fear to force the people to vote for them. It's the same tactic Hillary has been using.

The good thing is it hasn't worked against Obama in the primary nor did it work against the dems in MS nor the other places they just picked up seats in.

The bad news is this sort of lying and smearing and fear mongering is going to increase ten fold in the general election. - The good news is that tactic has proven ineffective against Obama but the republicans, like their commander in chief don't know when to change war strategy. Obama will be a little muddied in the end but they can't stop him.

Fatterboy:
...Hate to say it but Aussie Henry is right. Some people say it's strategically relevant, but that just doesn't wash. No major enemies in that area so it doesn't make the best launching pad for a possible attack like Iraq would be.

Americans are very religious people though, and the bible mentions the Jews as Gods chosen people, so a lot of church goers think we have an obligation based on that notion. Even our presidents believe that.

Sad for many reasons, but mostly pertaining to the USA that it seems core to one's ability to be President of your Country that they will not say anything bad and seemingly blindly support another Country. A Country that gives the appearance of being in un-reconcilable conflict with all of its neighbors, and as you mention does not appear to have any strategic worth. A Foreign Affairs nightmare scenario!

This is the beginning of smear campaign 2008. Call Rep. Bohner on it. I wrote to his site, Re. John Bohner, told him have transcripts back to back, it is a blantant smear and misrepresentation of Obama's statements. He obviously was in support of Israel. Asked Bohner to retract his statements. Anyone else can do this easily. E mail is on his site. Deluge him.

The American people know best, deep down in their heart, that he is the only one who can lead the US not only to recover their fathers' Founding Principles of freedom, progress and happiness, but also regain their authority on the world scene. America would have been in despair and total decline if he had not been the 44th President of United States of America.
Protect him from the dark forces that killed 45 years ago the hope of a better place for our children! He is not a superman or a savior, but he is the man of the new frontiers not only because of his unique background but also of his ability to foresee the future.
Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or atheists...Black, white or yellow! Americans, Africans. Europeans! What ever! Is there a human being in all this diversity?
Your kids do no longer say: I am from Israel or Palestine; they say: I am from Earth. No boundaries exist, only in your mind! Open your heart and foresee what is coming!

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee and will now be attacked by rabid Republicans. He is on the record in support of Israel. Barack Obama has had to defend himself against Hillary Clinton, Rev. Wright, Hard working white Americans, Lapel pins, is he Muslim, is he Christian, does he love America? Barack Obama is the man of the century. Americans are directly being forced to examine their deep seated feelings about race. America is struggling to overcome racism, still to heal it's long history of slavery, Jim Crow, and reluctance to accept progress, change, and equality. It is because of Barack Obama that this dialogue even exists. He is the one candidate who could succeed this far. He has run a brilliant campaign, joining new voters and raising millions of dollars to form a revolutionizing grassroots organization which has never been done before. He has got to be worrying the Republican party. Bohner's comments are tired points, taken out of context to create negative feeling from jews. How pathetic and revealing at the same time.

The slogan unveiled this week by House Republicans - "Change you deserve" - is already a trademark used by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals to market its antidepressant Effexor XR.

Black Screen.

Fade into:

Scene of a thin grey haired man standing in a green field. Behind him we can see the sun is rising.

"I got the change I deserved with GOP"

Cut to a small child, in a sun dress, who looks up at him and smiles.

"I was tired, listless. I had lost interest in my usual activities--creating false attacks, acting as if I had been unfairly attacked about issues created out of whole cloth, drawing specious historical parallels, fawning over ideologically bankrupt manufactured father figures. Sure, I sent emails claiming that Obama was a Muslim, but somehow...it had lost the spark, the enjoyment of everyday life."

Cut to a child who rides by on a bicycle, and throws a newspaper on the front porch.

"That's when I found GOP."

Cut to man rowing in a scull across a still river. He turns to the camera, smiles.

"In clinical studies, GOP has been found to increase aggressiveness in the absence of actual provocation in 8 out of 10 users. In most users, the desire to gleefully attack returns in 1 week. Full enthusiasm for invented ideas in two. "

Cut to image of porch swing.

"With GOP, my attention to minor distractions fully returned, until I was again building them into major accusations of flawed character. Once again, my intense focus on pins, buttons, sentences fragments and remote relationships as absolute indications of personal virtue and ability was at its peak. For an entire weekend, I could one again choose the right moment to accuse a candidate of treason without cause--when I was ready, when the time felt right".

Cut to a series of blurred images: long, stringy haired teens in torn jeans and ironic 80's t-shirts lounging by the Washington Monument; picture of John Kerry in a Swift Boat during Vietnam;
Eiffel Tower. Plate of Arugula. During these images, rapid voiceover in female voice:

"GOP may cause monosyllabism, inability to consider two differing concepts at the same time, memory loss or inaccurate recall of recently and repeatedly presented intelligence information, focus on size of automobiles or koro, sequential nicknaming, knowing mischaracterization, hooting. If you have a desire to read the collected works of Ann Coulter that lasts longer than four hours, this may be a sign of a dangerous condition and you should contact your physician immediately."

Cut back to man standing in field. American flag waving in the distance behind him, below a risen sun. A woman walks up beside him, puts her arm around him, and smiles.

Man:

"So get the change that you deserve. Talk to your Doctor about GOP. Soon, you'll be walking by the homeless on the street again and saying "Let them get a job!"

This deserves at least another Pinocchio. He did not say anything remotely like the quote given by the Republicans. He doesn't refer or relate to "Israel" in using the "sore" language. And I agree with Jake Tapper's rationale for why this is a much more grievous "misstatement." And I think Boehner deserves the extra Pinocchio just for having some "FREEDOM PROJECT" hack churn out a press release with his name on it and then use such a dismissive and arrogant attitude in responding to your inquiries.

FYI for all having difficulty with the much-maligned Senator's last name: Boener is pronounced "BAY-ner" because it's a surname of German origin. The pronunciation simulates how the name would sound in its original language with a umlaut (two small dots) over the first two vowels.

You should probably do something about your limited scope of European languages, people. Your mono-lingual streak is showing.

This type of Republican idiotic rhetoric is precisely why they will get their butts whipped this year. Americans are duly sick and tired of the shenanigans of liars trying to pass themselves off as intellectuals.
I suggest that Mr. Boehner try attending a night school class to improve his education, specifically comprehension.

No one in any party mixes up Obama's words. He does it all alone. He's a liar, and a coniver. If Obama gets the Presidential Election, it will be the down fall of the U.S. I predicted the problems with Bush eight years ago, and I can forsee the future problems with "Obama" .

It does not matter what Obama meant by a wound or a sore. Israel is actually a cancer in the Middle East, that simply does not fit in with the rest of the tissue, and seems to be ever growing. Time for excision, or at least some chemotherapy to starve it to oblivion.

JakeD has been BSin' these Wapo mesaage boards for months now, you won't get anywhere with him as you won't get anywhere with a 2 year old that "didn't steal the cookie". I'm thinking he just must want the attention because i've yet to see an argument he couldn't screw up, he has no concept of thoughtful discourse. He makes Republicans look bad and MAKES me want to vote Democrat.

I am unsure of how, logically, you believe a registered Independent can make REPUBLICANS look bad, but that's obviously not the topic of this thread -- if there's something specific I've posted above that you disagree with, please let me know -- let me know, of course, only if you want actual "thoughtful discourse".

I can't quite understand the 2 Pinocchios score for taking a person words and twisting them to mean the opposite. "Yes-those-were-the-words-he-used" shouldn't count as a partial truth. Turning a quote on its head to mean something entirely different is the definition of 4 Pinocchios IMHO.